How is uncircumcision reasonably justifiable? By the standard of Genesis 17, it is the matter of an eternal covenant (v.13) and is a matter that is considered breaking the Abrahamic covenant by not having it (v.14). I might add that in Genesis 17, it is also indicated that all of those brought into Abraham's household are also to be circumcised, not just the actual descendants alone (i.e., Gentiles as well). This creates an interesting situation when going by pauline theological standard (which ironically is what must be relied upon to justify lack of circumcision), because Paul's theology refers back to the Abrahamic covenant as not being able to be annulled (Gal 3:15, etc). However, it must be mentioned that Paul does not speak of the issue of not annulling the circumcision component of the covenant, but he speaks of his exposé on the alleged promise of that covenant as not being able to be annulled by the Torah.
Finally, by Torah standards, circumcision is required on the 8th day (Lev 12:3) and is required for those who are to partake of the Passover sacrifice (Ex 12:48), which is commanded to be done. Of course, there is not a generally known "place" to sacrifice it and partake thereof at the moment (that is, the Tabernacle has yet to be rebuilt and brought to rest in Canaan), but the assertion of circumcision not being a requirement and that "Paul got rid of it" (as if this is somehow a justification) is not reasonable by the standard of the Torah. It is a diminishment of the Torah (Dt 4:2, 12:32), and is otherwise a contradiction of Genesis 17.
---
Just in case anyone has been looking into circumcision options, I would suggest looking at eBay for Gomco clamps. New adult clamps can be found there for practically a twentieth of the retail price. That being said, I am not a doctor nor should this be construed to be medical advice. Theologically speaking, however, it is required to be done. Consult a licensed physician as appropriate.
(From prior posting on Gr. 6/13/14)
